Hamm v. Hamm, 113,451.

• Decision Date: 28 April 2015
• Docket Number: 113,451.
• Citation: 2015 OK 27,350 P.3d 124
• Parties: In re the Marriage of Sue Ann HAMM, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Harold HAMM, Respondent/Appellee.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

350 P.3d 124

2015 OK 27

In re the Marriage of Sue Ann HAMM, Petitioner/Appellant

v.Harold HAMM, Respondent/Appellee.

113,451.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 28, 2015.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM:

¶ 1 Sue Ann Hamm¹ (Petitioner) filed for divorce from her husband, Harold Hamm (Respondent), on May 18, 2012, in Oklahoma County District Court. On November 10, 2014, the district court entered its divorce decree, awarding Petitioner three pieces of real property and the properties' contents; Petitioner's Continental Resources, Inc. 401K; certain bank accounts; a note from Olan Arnall; and property-division alimony in the amount of $995,481,842.00, minus the $22,750,000.00 from interim distributions while the divorce was pending. The district court ordered Respondent to convey all property within five days of the order and pay a designated portion of the property-division alimony by the last day of 2014, then $7,000,000.00 per month, plus accrued interest, until Petitioner received the entire awarded sum. Instead, by January 5, 2015, Respondent had conveyed all court-ordered marital assets to Petitioner, including a check for the entire sum of the property-division alimony. Petitioner deposited the check and took possession of the marital property awarded to her soon after.

¶ 2 Petitioner appealed the district court's order on December 5, 2014. Respondent counter-appealed, filing his amended counter-petition in error on December 16, 2014. Nearly one month later, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss (mere days after Petitioner deposited the check and took possession of the court-ordered marital property). We now turn to Respondent's motion to dismiss before us.

¶ 3 Our analysis must begin with the general black-letter rule of law applicable here: “A party to an action who voluntarily accepts from [her] adversary the benefits accruing to [her] under a judgment cannot question the validity of such [j]udgment in this court on appeal, and thus deny the rights flowing to such adversary under said judgment.” Ingram v. Groves, 1921 OK 380, ¶ 0, 84 Okla. 159, 202 P. 1019, 1019 (Syllabus by the Court 1) ; see Bras v. Gibson, 1974 OK 148, ¶ 5, 529 P.2d 982, 983. The record before us compels us to conclude that Petitioner voluntarily accepted the benefits of the judgment. Despite Petitioner's argument to the contrary, she chose not to proceed with the district court's hearing on alimony pendente lite, instead depositing the check and taking possession of the court-ordered marital property. While an evidentiary hearing for alimony pendente lite may be intrusive,² such a hearing does not rise to the level of coercion necessary for Petitioner's argument that her decision to accept the benefits of the judgment was involuntary. Petitioner could have refused to accept the judgment and proceeded with the hearing, thereby maintaining her right to appeal.

¶ 4 Petitioner relies on two exceptions to the general rule that accepting the benefits of the judgment waives a party's right to appeal. The first, identified in Stokes v. Stokes, 1987 OK 56, 738 P.2d 1346, allows an appeal to proceed despite a party accepting the benefits of the judgment when the judgment accepted “is necessary for the support and maintenance of the receiving spouse and minor children.” Id. ¶ 3, 738 P.2d at 1347. Petitioner is correct that the Stokes exception must flow from enlightened public policy, but fails to recognize the exception is a narrow one; it applies to situations when a spouse “must choose between food and the right to appeal.” Id. We are not presented with that factual scenario here, and the exception does not apply.

¶ 5 The second exception identified by the Court applies if the judgment-accepting party's appeal may result in a more favorable judgment but has no risk of a less favorable one. United Engines, Inc. v. McConnell Constr., Inc., 1980 OK 139, ¶ 14, 641 P.2d 1101, 1104. If the reversal of the judgment appealed from “cannot possibly affect the appellant's rights to the benefits secured or vested under the part of the judgment which was allowed to become final,” a party has not waived his or her right to appeal by accepting the benefits of the judgment. Id. ¶ 15, 641 P.2d at 1105 (quoting Marshall v. Marshall, 1961 OK 86, ¶ 23, 364 P.2d 891, 895 ). Petitioner admits that there is a risk, albeit small, that her award may be reduced on appeal. The no-risk exception means no risk, not negligible risk. The second exception does not apply.

¶ 6 Respondent conveyed to Petitioner all court-ordered marital property. Petitioner took possession or title of the real property and deposited the check for property-division alimony. The parties acceded to the district court judgment and now have the benefits flowing from that judgment. The judgment is now satisfied. Respondent's motion to dismiss Petitioner's appeal is hereby granted.

Concur: REIF, C.J., and KAUGER, WINCHESTER, TAYLOR, and COLBERT, JJ.

Concur Specially: COMBS, V.C.J. (by separate writing with whom WINCHESTER, J. joins), and WATT, J. (by separate writing).

Dissent: EDMONDSON, J., and GURICH, J. (by separate writing with whom EDMONDSON, J. joins).

COMBS, V.C.J., with whom WINCHESTER, J., joins, concurring specially:

¶ 1 While I agree with the majority's decision that Petitioner's appeal should be dismissed, I write separately to emphasize the problems inherent in dismissing Petitioner's appeal while allowing Respondent's own appeal to proceed. The majority applies what has long been the general rule in Oklahoma: a party to an action who voluntarily accepts the benefits of a judgment waives the right to appeal. Adams v. Unterkircher, 1985 OK 96, ¶ 7, 714 P.2d 193 ; United Engines, Inc. v. McConnell Const., Inc., 1980 OK 139, ¶ 14, 641 P.2d 1101. As this Court pointed out in McMillian v. Holcomb, the appellate doctrine of barring an appeal due to accepting the benefits of a judgment is a type of estoppel born in equity. 1995 OK 117, ¶ 17, 907 P.2d 1034 ; Associated Classroom Teachers of Oklahoma City, Inc. v. Bd. of Ed. of Indep. School Dist. No. 89 of Oklahoma County, 1978 OK 35, ¶¶ 13–18, 576 P.2d 1157.

¶ 2 Historically, this rule also applied to a party paying or complying with a judgment. However, in Grand River Dam Authority v. Eaton, this Court altered the rule, determining:

[w]e now reject any rule that we have previously espoused that would require dismissal of an appeal merely on the basis that a judgment debtor pays a final and appealable judgment that could subject his property to execution and ultimate sale. Our rejection applies whether or not execution has issued....

unless the payment of a final judgment by a judgment debtor is shown to be made with the intent to compromise or settle the matter and, thus, to abandon the right to appeal or the payment in some way, not involved here, makes relief impossible in case of reversal, the payment will not be deemed to either waive the right to appeal or moot the controversy.

1990 OK 133, ¶ 14, 803 P.2d 705.

¶ 3 However, this Court later clarified the rule set out in Grand River Dam Authority and highlighted the importance of involuntary payment of the judgment as a necessary element to preserve the right to appeal. In Stites v. DUIT Constr. Co., this Court noted:

Oklahoma's jurisprudence holds that a voluntarilysatisfied judgment moots both an appeal that is lodged against it and all nisi prius vacation process. This is so because any errors in its entry become hypothetical or academic and hence no longer available for the exercise of judicial cognizance. Within the meaning of this rule, loss of jurisdiction takes place because nothing else remains to be done in the cause before the court. This is not to say that the trial court automatically loses cognizance after release and satisfaction is filed. Its jurisdiction continues over fraudulent releases of judgment or over post-satisfaction disputes about the legitimacy of satisfaction. In short, the ultimate power to determine (at the post-satisfaction stage) whether a judgment has been voluntarily satisfied rests in the trial court. Coerced satisfaction of judgment through garnishment process (as in this case) raises no bar to (a) a timely attack upon the judgment, (b) its vacation, on timely motion or petition upon tenable legal grounds, or (c) the restitution of funds paid towards its satisfaction.

1995 OK 69, ¶ 15, 903 P.2d 293 (internal footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).

¶ 4 This cause involved no garnishment proceedings, such as those in Stites. Nor did this cause involve any threat of execution. Instead, Respondent conveyed all court-ordered alimony in lieu of property to the Petitioner considerably earlier than the trial court required. It is fundamentally unfair to bar Petitioner from proceeding with her appeal challenging the trial court's property division because she accepted the benefits of it, while allowing Respondent to proceed in his own appeal attacking the property division when he satisfied the judgment voluntarily and arguably, as “bait”.

¶ 5 Respondent's counter-appeal seeks review of all the trial court's rulings, including its division of marital assets. An appellate court will not disturb the trial court's property division absent a finding of abuse of discretion or a finding that the decision is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Colclasure v. Colclasure, 2012 OK 97, ¶ 16, 295 P.3d 1123 ; Teel v. Teel, 1988 OK 151, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 994. Respondent's necessary assertion in his counter-appeal that the award is either an abuse of discretion or contrary to the weight of the evidence is somewhat at odds with his assertion that the award is fair and equitable as to Petitioner. Respondent is seeking to dismiss Petitioner's challenge to the very same property division that he in turn is challenging.

¶ 6 Respondent voluntarily complied with the trial court's division, without any threat of coercion, and as the majority correctly states: “[t]he parties acceded to the district...